CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001440/4155penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001440
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik
S/o Late Sh.Laxmi chand
R/o D-191, Karam Pura,
NEW DELHI- 110015
Respondent : Mr. V.P.Dahiya
Deemed PIO,
Executive Engineer, West Zone,
MWZ-5, Rajouri Garden,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
New Delhi-110015
RTI application filed on : 02/02/2009
PIO replied : 19/2/2009; 24/04/2009
First appeal filed on : Not Mentioned
First Appellate Authority order : 21/05/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 08/06/2009
Information sought:
The Appellant is not satisfied about the development work done in ward C-130 for the period
from 10.12.2007 to10.1.2009. In this regard the Appellant require the following document.
Photocopies of
1. Work order with schedule
2. Passed bill vouchers.
Reply of PIO:
On 19/2/2009- The PIO asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 750 as additional fee for the work
orders and Rs. 1000 for thecopies of vouchers.
On 24/04/2009- The PIO replied that the Information which appellant has asked is nearly about
2yrs document .So the process will take time. The information sought will be delivered.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Appellant paid Rs. 1750 as demanded vide receipt no. 919351 but information was not received.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The PIO/SE is directed to provide the detailed information to the appellant within 10 days
positively under intimation to this office.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik
Respondent: Mr. V.K.Sinha on behalf of Mr. V.P. Dahiya-EE & Deemed PIO
The Appellants’ RTI Application was received by the PIO on 02/02/2009 by his own admission.
He sent a letter on 19/02/2009 asking the Appellant to deposit Rs. 1750/- for 875 pages of
information. Thus the demand for additional fees was made after 17 days. The Appellant paid the
amount of Rs.1750/- on 05/03/2009 and therefore should have received the information within
13 days i.e. 19/03/2009. The information was provided to the Appellant on 15/06/2009. The PIO
was asked for explanation for this delay of 87 days in supplying the information.
Decision:
The Appeal was allowed.
The information has been provided but Rs.1750/- has been taken from the Appellant wrongly
which needs to be refunded. The Commission directs the Present PIO Mr. K.P.Singh – SE to
ensure that the Appellant is given the refund of Rs. 1750/- before 05 August 2009.
The issue before the Commission was of not supplying the complete, required information
by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it was apparent that the Mr. V.P. Dahiya-EE & Deemed
PIO was guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He had further
refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raised a reasonable doubt that the denial
of information might have been malafide. The First Appellate Authority had clearly ordered the
information to be given.
It appeared that the PIO’s actions attracted the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice was issued to him, and he was directed to give his reasons to the Commission to show
cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He was asked to present himself before the Commission on 18 August 2009 at 4.00pm alongwith
his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1).
He presented himself on 18 August 2009. PIO submitted proof that additional fee has been
refunded to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts Arising During The Hearing on 11 September 2009:
Persons Present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. V.P.Dahiya
02/02/2009- RTI Application received
19/02/2009- Appellant was asked to deposit additional fee of Rs. 1,750/-
05/03/2009- Additional fee was deposited by the Appellant
24/04/2009- PIO informed the Appellant the information sought was voluminous and therefore
he was asked to bear with the delay in providing information
09/06/2009- Appellant requested to come and collect information from the office
The PIO stated that on 19/02/2009 they were able to give a rough estimate of the amount that
needs to be deposited but they were not able to gauge at that time the volume of files that would
have be perused to collect the information. On being asked, the PIO stated that there were
approximately around 2000 vouchers in the relevant time period which were perused before
giving information to the Appellant.
When asked why Section 7(9) was not invoked, the PIO stated that the office was trying its best
to collect the information.
After demanding Rs 1750/- it is obvious that the PIO knew that there were 875 pages which he
must have surely identified. Hence, he should have provided the information within 13 days
(since 17 days had been earlier taken up) from the date on which fee was deposited, i.e.
05/03/2009. instead he supplied the information on 09/06/2009 instead of supplying it by
19/03/2009. There is a delay of 81 days for which there is no explanation.
Mr. V.P.Dahiya’s written submissions state that he has to perform other duties and that the
information was voluminous. He has also stated that he was very busy with the general elections
and hence he did not give information in time. Mr. Dahiya had asked the Appellant to pay Rs
1750 on 19/02/2009 but gave the information to the Appellant on 09/06/2009.
The PIO is again asked to explain why it took him so long to provide the information after
having estimated that the total number of photocopies to be given was 875. he offers no
reasonable cause for this. The Appellant paid the amount of Rs.1750/- on 05/03/2009 and
therefore should have received the information within 13 days i.e. 19/03/2009. The information
was provided to the Appellant on 15/06/2009, i.e. after a delay of 81 days. Since the PIO is
offering no reasonable cause for this delay of 81 days the Commission sees this as a fit case for
levy of penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act at the rate of Rs. 250 per day. Thus, the total
penalty payable on Mr. V.P.Dahiya is 81 X 250 = Rs. 20,250/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for levying
penalty on Mr. V.P.Dahiya deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information is
81 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. V.P.Dahiya, deemed PIO for Rs.
20,250/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of
Rs.20,250/- from the salary of Mr. V.P.Dahiya, deemed PIO, and remit the same by a demand
draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New
Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of
the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066.
The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ per month every month from the salary of
Mr. V.P.Dahiya, deemed PIO and remitted by the 10th of each month from October to December
2009 and a sum of Rs. 5,250/- will be remitted before 10th January 2010.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
11/09/2009
1- Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
Rnj